On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 06:44:52PM +0100, Lasse Reichstein Holst Nielsen wrote:
> So an interactive AGPL program *must* have a prominent way of giving
> information to the user. This breaks for any server where the return
> format is restricted (web servers should not insert content on
> delivered pages, so unless the HTTP headers are prominent enough, an
> AGPL3 web server is in trouble)
>
> The problem here is still that "interaction" isn't defined. And probably
> can't be without being either too narrow or too broad.
>From the previous discussion, I gather the FSF's interpretation is a
broad one. As regards the AGPL web server and other similar
hypotheticals, I think this would come down to user/community
pressure: i.e. if someone chooses a licence that is impractical then
either the software won't find many users, or the licensor will come
under pressure to move to a better licence.
That makes the AGPL a bad licence in some circumstances, but I'm not
convinced it makes it non-free.
John
(TINLA)